1st Half Dull, lets all defend and hope by freak accident we somehow score a goal.
2nd half, oh hang on bolton are not that great maybe we should try and press them a bit and hope by freak accident we score a goal.
We look like we don't know how to score, there is no pattern to our play, we dont have any attacking tactics to get it down the wing, play this way or that, its all just run around a bit faster and lets hope something happens. Its not lack of effort in the 2nd half, you can see they tried it just looks like there is no structure to what they are trying to do once we have the ball.
Fingers crossed when holmes, ranger and co. are fully match fit they can work it out.
I disagree with the comment about us not having any attacking tactics or structure. We're playing a 4-3-3 with inverted wingers, encouraging Nathaniel-George and Hackett-Fairchild to come inside onto their stronger foot. It was exactly this that led to RHF scoring on his debut against Barrow, and ANG getting a number of shots away at the beginning of the second half (having eschewed the opportunity in the first half).
That formation also allows our full-backs to overlap on the outside and, especially in the case of Clifford/Hart on the left-hand side, utilise their delivery into the penalty area. The tactic is generally to get the ball forward a lot quicker now into Akinola, if he's playing centrally, and his job is to hold the ball up and bring those wide players into the game. I thought Clifford in particular linked up really well with Akinola in the second half in that respect. It's not bringing us loads of goals, but that's because none of our forward players (and even Ranger as and when he is fit) have a record of being prolific in the league.
What is does do, however, is make us harder to break down at the back. Without wishing to get bogged down in too much talk about formations, whether you start with a 4-3-3 or a 4-2-3-1, there's a lot less chance that we'll get over-run in midfield. That's probably where the back 5 experiment in January emanated from, but that nullifies our attacking threat as it leaves the forward isolated. 4-4-2 means that there aren't enough bodies in the centre of the pitch, and doesn't play to our strengths given that it means we have two non-prolific forwards up top (or a non-prolific forward and a defender playing as a forward when Halford is there) rather than one forward and two wingers in a 4-3-3 (with ANG, RHF, Egbri, Holmes, even Olaynika able to play in that position, or Akinola if Ranger becomes available).
On the wider game, and the substitutions, I think Molesley was trying to get us the three points rather than one, and we shouldn't be too critical of that. That goal could easily have come if Clifford and/or Ferguson were still on the pitch, and - as tempting as it is to say that we could've settled for a comfortable point - three points would've been massive with Grimsby not playing and Barrow losing. Hart is a more attacking full-back than Clifford, so there was some sense behind that, and Acquah had played well at Cambridge and brought another body up front at the expense of a midfielder. You can quibble over whether the midfielder withdrawn should've been Demetriou rather than Ferguson, who has been very composed since joining the club. It was a gamble, but having done well in the second half to that point, it was worth it to try and get the victory.
And on Oxley, as much as it is a howler, it cost us one point in real terms. He earned us two with his injury time save at Newport eleven days earlier, so it's worth keeping everything in perspective.
